Serious football question:

[DanDority]

This is a serious question for the football minds of the board. What do you think of an Offense that is like that of Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech, here at State? Now, I realize it is not sexy and the media won't like it, however, you could be dangerous for a lot of teams. Think about it, how often do teams play against or even prepare for that style offense? In my opinion we could be a consistent 8-9 win team running a variation of the wishbone, triple option attack. Now, I know there are going to be nay sayers and detractors to my opinion, just put some thought into it and give some feed back. Fire away.

[smootness]

I really wanted us to go after him when he was at Navy. He will always keep you competitive, and when he gets a stud QB who can run that offense like it's meant to be run, it will always be very, very good.

However, there are some issues with it. One, if you get down, it's extremely hard to come back. Two, you're never going to recruit, especially on offense, like you really want to; sometimes, though, that doesn't matter, as long as you get the guys needed to run it.

But ultimately, I think it is what it is...it will essentially keep you at least at 5-6 wins and occasionally jump up to win 8-9, maybe 10. Which is basically where we now are. It wouldn't do us a lot of good, and if you want to take the next step and start truly competing for championships, I think you have to eventually get rid of the triple option.

[CJDAWG85]

I hate the way they block. It's borderline dirty.

[Political Hack]

This is a serious question for the football minds of the board. What do you think of an Offense that is like that of Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech, here at State? Now, I realize it is not sexy and the media won't like it, however, you could be dangerous for a lot of teams. Think about it, how often do teams play against or even prepare for that style offense? In my opinion we could be a consistent 8-9 win team running a variation of the wishbone, triple option attack. Now, I know there are going to be nay sayers and detractors to my opinion, just put some thought into it and give some feed back. Fire away.

that's basically the same philosophy everyone here wants to run with Dak. We just do it out of a different formation and it's mostly limited to two options rather than 3.

[CadaverDawg]

If we could be half as good in real life with the triple option as I am on playstation, we should 100% do it.*

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

If we could be half as good in real life with the triple option as I am on playstation, we should 100% do it.*
Haha I can go 50-55 for 600 yards per game with Tyler Russell on Xbox. I'll never understand why he can't do that in real life...*

[smootness]

Haha I can go 50-55 for 600 yards per game with Tyler Russell on Xbox. I'll never understand why he can't do that in real life...*

You wuss. Have some balls. That should be 20-24 for 600.

[Barking 13]

I'd be drooling if we ran a wishbone / diamond type with Dak and good receivers.... run, pass, keep, never know what to expect...

[Coach34]

I would be 100% behind it....why?

1. You need a stable of RB's- one position we have never had a problem recruiting at Miss State
2. Your offensive linemen dont have to be dominant- they use lots of double teams and combo blocks- plus cut blocks
3. You need mobile QB's- another thing we should be good at recruiting
4. It's a grinding offense that would help keep our D off the field
5. It only requires 2 WR's- which is a position we havent been recruiting worth a shit. WR's do alot of blocking but make lots of big plays in the passing game
6. Teams would ****ing hate playing us- it's completely different from what they normally play against

[Coach34]

that's basically the same philosophy everyone here wants to run with Dak. We just do it out of a different formation and it's mostly limited to two options rather than 3.

Dakota averages over 200 ypg PASSING- not even close to the same philosophy

[Coach34]

I hate the way they block. It's borderline dirty.

As a former Wishbone offensive linemen- I ****ing love it. It's so much more fun than blocking out of the I

[msstate7]

I wouldn't want to go completely to the option offense, but I'd love to add some to our offense. Not sure if that's practical. Don't option teams like GT have to get smaller, quicker o'linemen?

[Political Hack]

Dakota averages over 200 ypg PASSING- not even close to the same philosophy

yeah, cause Vad Lee's 150 yards per game is much different than 200??? That makes no sense. Yardage differences don't dictate different philosophies... scheme does.

An option run attack offense is an option run attack offense. Just because CDM calls more pass plays that Johnson doesn't mean the two systems aren't based on the same fundamental philosophies. They both are based off the veer option. One is just more geared to a true triple option instead of a read option. fundamentally, they're the same principles though.

[Homedawg]

Dakota averages over 200 ypg PASSING- not even close to the same philosophy

I read it as him saying people want more option w Dak. And the option they get w us is just not the triple option. Which is true. It's either give or keep. Or keep or pitch, not the bone triple.

[dawgindothan]

It's more about the players than the scheme. Just about any scheme works with the right players.

Paul Johnson isn't a good recruiter. He did well his first two years at GT coaching mostly Chan Gailey recruits. He's 21-19 the last three years coaching mostly his own recruits. And 21-19 sounds better than it actually is because GT plays in the mediocre ACC. In the last three years, GT has lost non-conference games to Kansas, Air Force, Utah, MTSU (lost by 21 points and only put up 28 points against a Tyrone Nix coached defense), and BYU. If GT played a SEC schedule, that 21-19 record would look more like 15-25.

I agree with smootness that you're never going to recruit great running that type of scheme, but GT's poor recruiting the last few years is due more to Paul Johnson's prickly demeanor and simply not taking recruiting seriously enough. Johnson isn't well liked or respected by GT fans or alumni. I know a guy who played at GT in the early 90s who has attended numerous GT football practices the last few years. He says Johnson watches entire practices from the tower, lets his assistants run practice, and doesn't communicate with players at all. Johnson has gotten into heated spats with Atl sports radio guys live on the air. He has even gotten into spats with critical fans during his weekly call in show.

Johnson may last another 2 or 3 seasons at GT, but he's on borrowed time and most realistic GT fans acknowledge that. For whatever reason, GT always seems to hang onto coaches for too long (see Paul Hewitt). I'm aware that GT is currently 3-0, but they'll finish with at least 5 losses.

[WeWillScrewItUp]

If we lined up in the wishbone this ol boy here would lose it with excitement. When I was in HS we ran the wishbone and I loved being an OL running the wishbone.

[smootness]

I agree with smootness that you're never going to recruit great running that type of scheme, but GT's poor recruiting the last few years is due more to Paul Johnson's prickly demeanor and simply not taking recruiting seriously enough. Johnson isn't well liked or respected by GT fans or alumni. I know a guy who played at GT in the early 90s who has attended numerous GT football practices the last few years. He says Johnson watches entire practices from the tower, lets his assistants run practice, and doesn't communicate with players at all. Johnson has gotten into heated spats with Atl sports radio guys live on the air. He has even gotten into spats with critical fans during his weekly call in show.

Johnson may last another 2 or 3 seasons at GT, but he's on borrowed time and most realistic GT fans acknowledge that. For whatever reason, GT always seems to hang onto coaches for too long (see Paul Hewitt). I'm aware that GT is currently 3-0, but they'll finish with at least 5 losses.

Oh I'm in Atlanta, believe me, I know all about Paul Johnson. He could recruit better than he does, just saying that you won't ever recruit the way fans want you to running that offense. If the offense ever came here, even if he won 8-9 every year, people would get sick of it, say we'll never win championships doing it, and say that if we weren't bad at recruiting, we might be able to get over the hump.

You won't ever get big-time QBs, you won't ever get big-time WRs, and even most RBs understand that it doesn't prepare them for the next level. They all want to play in the offenses that they see at the next level.

[msugolf]

If we ran the triple option, wishbone, etc. it would immediately set the program back 20 years and alienate us from the rest of the conference. If you think its hard to recruit now, try going into a recruit's home selling 1982.

[Coach34]

An option run attack offense is an option run attack offense. Just because CDM calls more pass plays that Johnson doesn't mean the two systems aren't based on the same fundamental philosophies. They both are based off the veer option. One is just more geared to a true triple option instead of a read option. fundamentally, they're the same principles though.

ok- now we are talking about my area of expertise

The zone read is not really an "option-based attack". It's the bastard cousin of the traditional option. Teams have not had a "triple-threat" out of it as you did with the veer. Veer blocking is down block (toward the football) on the playside- where the zone read requires a zone stretch block(away from the ball) to the playside.

What has made the zone read unique and tough to defend is that the play can be run to either side on the same snap. You have the RB headed on a zone stretch route looking for a hole to get into and get upfield- together with the QB reading the backside DE. The old option/veer plays attack one side of the defense looking to draw defenses in by establishing the FB and then creating sealed off alleys for the QB or pitchback to find.

One thing I hope we get into is having the zone-read look, and the running the option to the backside. We have run it twice- once fumbling vs Auburn and then once against Troy. It's a good-looking play and one that really forces the defense to play both sides of the ball as well. This is an added part to the play that really hasnt been run by people to this point. Just more evolution

One thing I'd like to see us do also is run the veer with no pitchman...Double down, lead JRob off the Guard's hip- making the DE crash and take him, and have Dak running free in the alley. Do it out of Spread formations to create a numbers advantage out there.

[Coach34]

I talked about this in another thread:

We are also adding the zone-read trap. We run the zone read, but pull the frontside Tackle back to kick out the backside DE. This is pure HELL to stop from a defensive standpoint. By running this, we will slow down LB flow on the zone read- and this will allow us to give the ball to the RB's more often as the linemen can get to the 2nd level and cut off the slower flowing LB's

[Political Hack]

ok- now we are talking about my area of expertise

The zone read is not really an "option-based attack". It's the bastard cousin of the traditional option. Teams have not had a "triple-threat" out of it as you did with the veer. Veer blocking is down block (toward the football) on the playside- where the zone read requires a zone stretch block(away from the ball) to the playside.

What has made the zone read unique and tough to defend is that the play can be run to either side on the same snap. You have the RB headed on a zone stretch route looking for a hole to get into and get upfield- together with the QB reading the backside DE. The old option/veer plays attack one side of the defense looking to draw defenses in by establishing the FB and then creating sealed off alleys for the QB or pitchback to find.

One thing I hope we get into is having the zone-read look, and the running the option to the backside. We have run it twice- once fumbling vs Auburn and then once against Troy. It's a good-looking play and one that really forces the defense to play both sides of the ball as well. This is an added part to the play that really hasnt been run by people to this point. Just more evolution

One thing I'd like to see us do also is run the veer with no pitchman...Double down, lead JRob off the Guard's hip- making the DE crash and take him, and have Dak running free in the alley. Do it out of Spread formations to create a numbers advantage out there.

bastard cousin is still a cousin, but I get your point.

[codeDawg]

I talked about this in another thread:

We are also adding the zone-read trap. We run the zone read, but pull the frontside Tackle back to kick out the backside DE. This is pure HELL to stop from a defensive standpoint. By running this, we will slow down LB flow on the zone read- and this will allow us to give the ball to the RB's more often as the linemen can get to the 2nd level and cut off the slower flowing LB's

On the subject of all this zone-read stuff we are running. It would be great to get Williams in to run some of this in a real game. It looked to me like Auburn kept taking the pitch guy, and Dak kept reading the play correctly to keep it, but he was beat to hell and back because of it.

Relf was hurt most of his Sr. season because he got clobbered so much in the early games (again Auburn).

[DownwardDawg]

I just wish we would run the wishbone more in the red zone. That would make me happy!!

[hacker]

big-time WRs

Just had to mention: Calvin Johnson, Demaryius Thomas, Stephen Hill in just the last few years

[Todd4State]

I would be OK with running the wishbone bastard offense that Paul Johnson runs, but I do think that if we do our fans are going to need to completely stop caring about recruiting rankings. I don't know a lot about Georgia Tech football- and maybe Paul Johnson could recruit better there- but the downside is I think we would have a hard time getting QB's, o-linemen, WR's, and possibly even RB's. Not because it's a bad offense, but because like someone else said- players are going to want to do whatever will best prepare them for the NFL. But I would also have to think that the scheme is also a big reason why he hasn't recruited well there also.

We could make it work with the "right" players- think guys like Chris Relf who probably would have been pretty good in that offense. I think that would mesh well with the way Dan "wants" to recruit.

The pros are it certainly may level the playing field to a degree against people like Alabama and LSU.

[Todd4State]

I would be 100% behind it....why?

1. You need a stable of RB's- one position we have never had a problem recruiting at Miss State
2. Your offensive linemen dont have to be dominant- they use lots of double teams and combo blocks- plus cut blocks
3. You need mobile QB's- another thing we should be good at recruiting
4. It's a grinding offense that would help keep our D off the field
5. It only requires 2 WR's- which is a position we havent been recruiting worth a shit. WR's do alot of blocking but make lots of big plays in the passing game
6. Teams would ****ing hate playing us- it's completely different from what they normally play against

I have a question about the o-line in the Paul Johnson offense. I know he wants smaller o-linemen. If we had Gabe Jackson sized o-linemen, would it work better?

[Todd4State]

Just had to mention: Calvin Johnson, Demaryius Thomas, Stephen Hill in just the last few years

The first two guys were recruited by Gailey.

[Coach34]

I have a question about the o-line in the Paul Johnson offense. I know he wants smaller o-linemen. If we had Gabe Jackson sized o-linemen, would it work better?

your guards can be bigger, drive-blocking types- they do more of this vs DT's...Tackles need to be smaller to combo block and engage LB's as well as reach block DE's at times. Tackles do alot of angle blocking and very little drive blocking

[Homedawg]

I talked about this in another thread:

We are also adding the zone-read trap. We run the zone read, but pull the frontside Tackle back to kick out the backside DE. This is pure HELL to stop from a defensive standpoint. By running this, we will slow down LB flow on the zone read- and this will allow us to give the ball to the RB's more often as the linemen can get to the 2nd level and cut off the slower flowing LB's

This is a favorite of pastor freeze.

[Coach34]

This is a favorite of pastor freeze.

that he got from the coach at Leake Academy.

Werner was coaching at North Delta in Batesville- and Leake wore them out in the playoffs with that play. That Summer- Werner got with Leake's coach for an hour and talked about the play and it's variances with him. Then Werner started running it at OM when Freezus hired him.

Leake Academy has helped OM build its program.

[DanDority]

Just had to mention: Calvin Johnson, Demaryius Thomas, Stephen Hill in just the last few years

I would be willing to bet most people do not know that those three all came from GT

[hacker]

The first two guys were recruited by Gailey.

smoot said you wouldn't be able to recruit big time WRs to the school in general, not anything about which coach recruited them

[msstate7]

I would be OK with running the wishbone bastard offense that Paul Johnson runs, but I do think that if we do our fans are going to need to completely stop caring about recruiting rankings. I don't know a lot about Georgia Tech football- and maybe Paul Johnson could recruit better there- but the downside is I think we would have a hard time getting QB's, o-linemen, WR's, and possibly even RB's. Not because it's a bad offense, but because like someone else said- players are going to want to do whatever will best prepare them for the NFL. But I would also have to think that the scheme is also a big reason why he hasn't recruited well there also.

We could make it work with the "right" players- think guys like Chris Relf who probably would have been pretty good in that offense. I think that would mesh well with the way Dan "wants" to recruit.

The pros are it certainly may level the playing field to a degree against people like Alabama and LSU.

I think wr's in GT's offense are successful in the nfl in part bc they learn how to block in college. Nfl loves wr's that can block

[Coach 57]

C34 is right. The main difference between the two is the "mesh point". I HATE defensing a true veer! Hate it! The reason is it makes your DTs (who are crucial in stopping the offense) scared & play hesitant because of the low blocks inside. I can teach my kids to defend a double team or even a down block but you start simulating the inside cut blocks and a kid's enthusiasm to learn go right out the window.